Fred - that argument is not new. Humans are flawed and human institutions are flawed as well. That's just the way things are. You say to throw institutions that work well away in the hope that perfect institutions will emerge in their place. I say that since we humans are flawed, whatever emerges will be less than perfect and therefore its better to work with what we have an try to improve it.

You would be correct. There is no perfect justice or government because there are no perfect people. This is true, except to say that I would like to think that competition amongst competing private security firms might do a better job than those with monopoly-on-force contracts because they must meet the needs of those with whom they contract or else lose business....snip...

I'm about to disappear for a few days - I'll leave you to ponder what happens when the private security firms are in conflict? Its either permanent civil war or by a process of elimination a super powerful one emerges. Anarchy or dictatorship - both are less pleasant than having heavily regulated policemen that do as they are told.

When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.

Huh?

If you view the bicycle as an investment to buy and resell later, then the poor man can claim a capital gain or loss on sale. If he claims a loss, he would pay no taxes on it, and could potentially offset prior or future income with said loss.

Otherwise, a poor man pays no taxes on the purchase of a bicycle (except sales taxes in some states, but talk to the state governments about that).

If you're talking about the money that was used to purchase the bicycle, well, think about it. The poor man would have received money from a job he worked, paying taxes on it (or maybe not if he had enough deductions). The rich man would have received money from prior investments, which he did pay capital gains taxes on.

When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.

Huh?

If you view the bicycle as an investment to buy and resell later, then the poor man can claim a capital gain or loss on sale. If he claims a loss, he would pay no taxes on it, and could potentially offset prior or future income with said loss.

Otherwise, a poor man pays no taxes on the purchase of a bicycle (except sales taxes in some states, but talk to the state governments about that).

If you're talking about the money that was used to purchase the bicycle, well, think about it. The poor man would have received money from a job he worked, paying taxes on it (or maybe not if he had enough deductions). The rich man would have received money from prior investments, which he did pay capital gains taxes on.

You continue to make the confusion that if you think the spending is wrong, then the tax must be wrong too.

On the other hand some confused people think that if the spending is right, then the taxing (theft) must have been right too.

No that's not confusion. If you have decided to spend money, you will have to raise the money. Taxation is one way of doing that.

I don't disagree that taxation is a way of raising the money.

But so is a Great Train Robbery.

You'll find it very hard to get elected on a platform of spending money that is raised by robbing trains.

That's an appeal to popularity, it doesn't resolve ethical problems. Not to say it proves you wrong, but it doesn't prove you right.

Sorry but if a more popular way of paying for public services than taxation comes along, its going to happen. There is no ethical issue here - once you decide to spend money it has to be raised and the method is whatever the electorate will tolerate.

When a poor man invests in a bicycle to increase his wealth, he's taxed regardless of outcome. When a rich man invests in stocks, he's only taxed if he profits.

Huh?

If you view the bicycle as an investment to buy and resell later, then the poor man can claim a capital gain or loss on sale. If he claims a loss, he would pay no taxes on it, and could potentially offset prior or future income with said loss.

Otherwise, a poor man pays no taxes on the purchase of a bicycle (except sales taxes in some states, but talk to the state governments about that).

If you're talking about the money that was used to purchase the bicycle, well, think about it. The poor man would have received money from a job he worked, paying taxes on it (or maybe not if he had enough deductions). The rich man would have received money from prior investments, which he did pay capital gains taxes on.

Well, I certainly agree with you that sales taxes are a bad idea! It just slows spending, which is not what we need...

It is less bad to slow spending than savings. Sales taxes cause less damage than income taxes, if done on the same level.

I disagree.

If you slow spending, you slow the entire economy, which means fewer jobs, fewer companies, and lower GDP/economic activity. What happens if you slow savings? People don't have as much to retire on? Possibly more debt?

Savings is what fuels investments and economic growth.Nothing against consumption, but it just doesn't create economic growth.An increase in consumption is the consequence of economic growth, not its cause.